Abstracts
Abstract
The paper examines the idea that all research methodology is based on hypotheses of different kinds, both interpretive and empirical. Interpretive hypotheses (that something is usefully interpreted as something) can be tested pragmatically, but are not falsifiable; they underlie all empirical research. As an example of empirical hypotheses we focus first on the descriptive type, and in particular the literal translation hypothesis. This states that translators tend to proceed from more literal to less literal versions as they process a given text chunk. This hypothesis serves to illustrate the main criteria according to which any hypothesis can be claimed to be significant. These criteria are: explicitness, multiple testability, theoretical implications, applicability, surprise value, and explanatory power. Several other fairly well-known hypotheses in Translation Studies are also referred to.
Keywords:
- methodology,
- hypothesis,
- literal translation,
- explanation,
- justification
Résumé
Cet article examine l’idée que toute méthodologie se base sur des hypothèses, que ces dernières soient interprétatives ou descriptives. On peut soumettre les hypothèses interprétatives (où l’on considère qu’un phénomène donné peut être utilement interprété comme quelque chose) à des tests pragmatiques, mais elles ne sont pas falsifiables; ces hypothèses soutiennent toute recherche empirique. A titre d’exemple d’hypothèses empiriques, nous prenons d’abord le type descriptif, plus particulièrement l’hypothèse de traduction littérale. Selon celle-ci, les traducteurs ont tendance à passer d’une version plus littérale à une version moins littérale lors du maniement d’un segment de texte. Nous nous servons de cette hypothèse pour illustrer les critères principaux selon lesquels n’importe quelle hypothèse peut s’avérer signifiante. Les critères sont : leur nature explicite, une testabilité multiple, leurs implications théoriques, leurs applications, leur valeur de surprise et leur puissance explicative. Nous faisons référence aussi à d’autres hypothèses assez connues en traductologie.
Mots-clés :
- méthodologie,
- hypothèse,
- traduction littérale,
- explication,
- justification
Appendices
Bibliographie
- BECHER, Viktor (2010). “Abandoning the Notion of ‘Translation-Inherent’ Explicitation. Against a Dogma of Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures, 11, 1, pp. 1-28.
- BERMAN, Antoine (1990). “La retraduction comme espace de la traduction.” Palimpsestes, 4, pp. 1-7.
- BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana (2000 [1986]). “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen, Narr, pp. 17-35.
- BRISSET, Annie (1989). “In Search of a Target Language: The Politics of Theatre Translation in Quebec.” Target, 1, 1, pp. 9-27.
- CHESTERMAN, Andrew (2007). “What is a Unique Item?” In Y. Gambier et al., eds. Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 3-13.
- CHESTERMAN, Andrew (2008). “The Status of Interpretive Hypotheses.” In G. Hansen et al., eds. Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 49-61.
- CHESTERMAN, Andrew (2011). “Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis.” In C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius, eds. Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 23-35.
- CROFT, William (2003 [1990]). Typology and Universals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, second edition.
- ENGLUND DIMITROVA, Birgitta (2005). Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- FØLLESDAL, Dagfinn (1979). “Hermeneutics and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method.” Dialectica, 33, 3-4, pp. 319-336.
- FØLLESDAL, Dagfinn (1994). “Hermeneutics and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method.” In M. Martin and L. C. McIntyre, eds. Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, pp. 233-245.
- HALVERSON, Sandra (2003). “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals.” Target, 15, 2, pp. 197-241.
- HALVERSON, Sandra (2007). “Investigating Gravitational Pull in Translation: The Case of the English Progressive Construction.” In R. Jääskeläinen, T. Puurtinen and H. Stotesbury, eds. Texts, Process and Corpora: Research Inspired by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. Joensuu, Publications of the Savonlinna School of Translation Studies 5, pp. 175-195.
- IVIR, Vladimir (1981). “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited.” In I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury, eds. Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations. Tel Aviv, Porter Institute for Poetics and Semotics, Tel Aviv University, Poetics Today, 2, 4, pp. 51-59.
- JANSEN, Astrid and Arnt Lykke JAKOBSEN (2000). “Translating Under Time Pressure.” In A. Chesterman et al., eds. Translation in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 105-116.
- KLAUDY, Kinga (1996). “Back-Translation as a Tool for Detecting Explicitation Strategies in Translation.” In Klaudy et al., eds. Translation Studies in Hungary. Budapest, Scholastica, pp. 99-114.
- KOSKINEN, Kaisa (2008). Translating Institutions. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
- LEUVEN-ZWART, Kitty M. van (1989). “Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities I.” Target, 1, 2, pp. 151-181.
- LEUVEN-ZWART, Kitty M. van (1990). “Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities II.” Target, 2, 1, pp. 69-95.
- MAURANEN, Anna and Pekka KUJAMÄKI (2004). Translation Universals Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- MOSSOP, Brian (2007). Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing, second edition.
- NIDA, Eugene A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden, Brill.
- PALOPOSKI, Outi and Kaisa KOSKINEN (2010). “Reprocessing Texts: The Fine Line between Retranslating and Revising.” Across Languages and Cultures, 11, 1, pp. 29-49.
- PYM, Anthony (2008). “On Toury’s Laws of How Translators Translate.” In A, Pym et al., eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 311-328.
- SALMON, Wesley C. (1998). Causality and Explanation. New York, OUP.
- SELESKOVITCH, Danica and Marianne LEDERER (1984). Interpréter pour traduire. Paris, Didier.
- TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, Sonja (2004). “Unique Items Over- or Under-Represented in Translated Language?” In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, eds. Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 177-184.
- TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, Sonja (2005). “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta, 50, 2, pp. 405-414.
- TOURY, Gideon (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.